User:Pthomas4/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article: Jane Sharp (Jane Sharp)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I'm interested in Jane Sharp because her work integrates the topic of this course - Women Scientists - with my home discipline of rhetoric. Jane Sharp was a midwife (which, at the time, was considered a medical position), but she was also the first English woman to write a book instructing other women on how to practice midwifery.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

The introductory lead of the article includes a detailed sentence identifying Sharp by her time period and profession, and includes her most notable professional accomplishment, her book publication. It includes a link to the article referred to in Sharp's profession (midwife) and a reference to an article on her book.

The lead also includes a table of contents for the remaining portions of the article, but otherwise does not include any further description of the majors sections.

As the lead is only 2 sentences long, it does not include information that is different from what is included in the article.

Given the varied topics that appear within the article itself, this lead could be expanded a bit. It does not suffer from overly detailed information, but could include more information to preview the various topics that are included in subsequent sections. For instance, there's a section on "Other Midwifery Manuals," which doesn't seem immediately relevant to Sharp's article, but perhaps this means that the portion on other midwifery manuals should go elsewhere. If so, then the lead is appropriately concise.

Lead evaluation
Overall, the Lead contains accurate and concise information about Jane Sharp.

Content

 * Guiding questions

Generally speaking, the article content is relevant to the topic. The majority of the article discusses Sharp's book on midwifery - which is to be expected - but there's also a subsequent section that discusses other people's midwifery books, which seems out of place. It appears that the contributors are trying to contextualize Sharp's writing historically, but the contextual connections are not yet clear.

While the content is mostly up-to-date, there are some instances in which the world choice of contributors is a bit unclear or debatable. For instance, the current version of the article notes that Sharp drew upon "Aristotle... and fellow medieval writers of midwifery manuals," which is technically incorrect, as Sharp is not living in the medieval era but the 17th century. Also the section on Sharp's occupation notes that "midwives also had a unique role as a woman present in more public, male-dominated areas like churches and courts for christenings and trials over sexual matters. Though men were beginning to enter the field, the vast majority of births in Sharp's time took place in the mother's home, presided over by a female midwife." It's not clear what historical evidence the contributors are using either to note midwives' roles in legal contexts or to show men's increasing participation in the profession.

The article might be updated to reflect current discussions about Sharp's contributions to the fields of obstetrics as well as to women's writing and rhetoric.

Finally, I think the biographical information about Sharp might be expanded by seeking other source material outside of encyclopedia biographies. Sources from the history of women in medicine might reveal more biographical information about her life than what is presented here.

Content evaluation
Generally, the content is good, though the article might benefit from revision (to the discussion of the Midwives Book) and source attribution for personal biographical information and the "midwifery" section. Finally, it would be worth discussing with contributors whether the section on "Other Midwives Manuals" belongs in this article or in another article of its own.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions

The article is generally neutral and balanced in tone and follows the standards for source selection and quality. The discussion of Sharp's book accurately describes its contents without editorializing. The one viewpoint that may be underrepresented is the more recent attention to Sharp's work in the field of rhetoric - specifically feminist rhetorical history. In this regard, the contributors might be able to support the description of Sharp's personal views toward childbirth and women's health and sexuality with even further evidence. Otherwise, the tone and balance are very much in line with expectations for neutrality.

Tone and balance evaluation
The article provides a useful example of the appropriate tone. Updating some references and expanding the perspectives with which scholars have attended to Sharp's work would provide further evidence in support of the balance that this article demonstrates.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions

The sources for this article include encyclopedic biographies (i.e., Oxford Dictionary of National Biography), academic/practitioner journals (The Practicising Midwife) and books. While all but one of the links work, the contributors note where sources are paywalled, which is a useful piece of information to have when checking or using references included in the article. The most recent source is 2013.

Recognizing that the sources included are focused on the contributions Sharp made to the practice of midwifery, the sources are limited in scope. One source draws from the journal Women's Writing, yet the article is includes both categories for English non-fiction writers and 17th Century Women Scientists.

Sources and references evaluation
Sources and their use are well selected and employed in this article. However, drawing more source material from both disciplines that are included in the categories would help to improve the range and scope of sources.

Organization

 * Guiding questions

The article is readable for a general audience, and organized into clear sections. The article begins with a discussion of Sharp's life and biographical details, which readers might expect, and then moves on to specific sections on her professional work and personal views about women. The article is free from surface-level errors.

Organization evaluation
The article demonstrates attention to reader's needs in terms of organization and mechanics.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions

The images included in this article are images of Sharp's Midwife's Book, including the Title Page, two medical illustrations, and the frontispiece. All images contain captions, though the two medical illustrations could use further context (neither image includes where in the text the images appear). All images are linked to Wikimedia and each link includes the Creative Commons license.

Images are included within the article to align with the right side of the page. Beyond this, there's not a clear rationale for where or why the images appear as they do, or how they specifically relate to the text of the article.

Images and media evaluation
The images included in this article are fascinating and display the work for which Sharp is most well-known; however, there is room for improvement with regard to specific placement and integration with the text.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions

The article was started as part of the Zoological Society of London Edit-a-Thon and was expanded by another user as part of a class assignment. Much of the talk on peer review is supportive of the original editor's work, especially because it seems like this person was new to editing Wikipedia. Interestingly, the peer review suggests further elaboration of the biographical information, which is similar to my reading of the article. This comment was left in 2014, so I wonder whether the project has been abandoned? I noticed too that some of the comments are "unsigned" - yet the username is given. I'm not sure what "unsigned" means in this context.

I think the way Wikipedia discusses the topic is somewhat in line with how we've been discussing the topic in class - but that's likely because this is a shorter entry. One difference is that the conversations tend to focus on particular strategies for improving the article, whereas we've discussed notability at length. These conversations assume notability - they're interested in the details of Sharp's life.

Talk page evaluation
The talk page is revealing of how other contributors can encourage, provide feedback, and demonstrate expertise in terms of planning a relatively short and new(ish) article. However, the fact that many conversations have ceased suggests that interests in Sharp specifically may be passing or have passed.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions

The overall status of the article is of good quality. If I were evaluating it from a teacher's perspective, I'd say it's a solid B. The contributors have taken care to provide important, relevant information pertaining to Sharp's life and work. The tone and organization are well-aligned to readers' expectations, as are the quality of source material. Still, this is an article in need of some expansion and development, specifically in terms of updating and expanding the sources and discussion of Sharp's contributions to both the fields of medicine and rhetoric (both of which were sciences in Sharp's time). Further discussion is necessary among contributors about the role of the "Other Midwives Manuals" section of the article, and doing so might invite additional strategies for expanding the biographical information included in the article.

Optional activity

 * Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback

with four tildes — ~


 * Link to feedback: Talk:Jane Sharp